Harald Heinrichs · Pim Martens Gerd Michelsen · Arnim Wiek Editors

1 
Descriptive-Analytical vs. Transformational Sustainability 
Research 
Sustainability research addresses problems that pose major threats to the viability 
and integrity of societies around the world (Kates et al.
2001
 ; Clark and Dickson 
 
2003
 ; Jerneck et al.
2011
; Sarewitz et al.
2012
 ; Miller et al.
2014
 ). Yet, the term 
“addresses” is ambiguous, which is why the fi eld of sustainability science has 
mainly developed in two distinctive streams (Wiek et al.
2012
). 
The fi rst one is primarily concerned with addressing sustainability problems 
through describing and analyzing them—their complexity, dynamics, and cause- 
effect relations (Turner et al.
2003
 ; Ostrom
2009
 ; Collins et al.
2011
; De Vries 
 
2013
 ). The dominant methodological approach here is systems thinking and model-
ing, applied to past, current, and future sustainability problems. According to its 
main features, this stream has been called the “descriptive-analytical.” 
The second stream addresses sustainability problems by developing evidence- 
supported solution options for them (Sarewitz et al.
2012
; Miller et al.
2014
 ; Wiek 
et al.
2015
). In this context, solutions are real-world changes that depend on actions 
executed by stakeholders other than researchers. Solution options, by contrast, are 
evidence-supported, actionable knowledge that, if applied, can lead to such real- 
world changes toward sustainability. Solutions to sustainability problems are gener-
ally not simple technical fi xes or command-control procedures; they are often as 
complex as the problems themselves and require long-term processes that involve 
real-world experimentation, collective learning, and continuous adaptation. The 
second stream is therefore primarily concerned with providing evidence for how 
successfully to intervene in sustainability problems in order to resolve or at least 
mitigate them. For this, a suffi cient problem understanding is advantageous; yet, 
gaining this understanding is here undertaken pragmatically, without losing sight of 
the ultimate objective to develop evidence-supported solution options (Sarewitz 
et al.
2012
 ). With its intention to transform problems toward solutions, this stream 
has been called the “transformational.” 
The fact that a solution-oriented perspective is distinctly different from a 
problem- focused one has been acknowledged in several fi elds over the past decade. 
As Robinson and Sirard ( 
2005
 , p. 196) point out for the fi eld of public health 
research, “Knowing a cause of a problem, while sometimes a helpful fi rst step, does 
not directly translate into knowing how to intervene to solve that problem.” Let’s 
illustrate the difference between descriptive-analytical and transformational sus-
tainability research with examples from climate change research. A great deal of 
research in this area addresses emission sources, pathways, atmospheric CO 
2
con-
centrations, temperature changes, and effects such as sea-level rise, as well as 
impacts on societies, for example, migration from coastal regions. This research 
enhances our understanding of the complex cause-effect relations in the human- 
climate system. However, it does not provide any knowledge as to what we can do
in order to mitigate or adapt to climate change effectively. The latter is being pur-
sued in transformational climate change research. Here, researchers develop and 
A. Wiek and D.J. Lang

---

33
test different strategies that can change the current emission sources, pathways, 
atmospheric CO 
2
concentrations, temperature changes, effects, and impacts toward 
a sustainable vision. 
For transformational sustainability research, which is the focus of this chapter, it 
is important to develop clear methodological guidelines (as it is important for any 
other fi eld). Such guidelines provide researchers with instructions and quality crite-
ria on how to conduct transformational sustainability research. They enable 
researchers to select, combine, and apply methods in pursuit of designing and test-
ing solution options. While such guidelines might be informed by existing method-
ologies, we cannot simply carry over methodologies of established disciplines and 
hope to accomplish transformational results with approaches that were not built for 
this purpose. If transformational solutions are the ultimate goal, we need to develop 
and adopt research methodologies that are capable of reaching this goal (Miller 
et al.
2014
 ). 
Three general methodological requirements apply to transformational sustainabil-
ity research: fi rst, transformational research needs to apply suitable methods ; such 
methods are transparent, structured, and replicable sequences of steps that generate 
knowledge as ingredients of solution options. Such solution options should be com-
posed of different types of knowledge (Grunwald
2007
): they should (1) be based on, 
at least, a suffi cient understanding of the problem (descriptive-analytical/system 
knowledge); (2) be guided by a coherent and sustainability-inspired vision (norma-
tive/target knowledge); and (3) outline concrete transition and intervention strategies, 
i.e., action plans that detail how to resolve the problem and reach the vision (instruc-
tional/transformation knowledge). Thus, second, transformational sustainability 
research needs to employ methodological frameworks that combine different types 
of methods to generate such multifaceted actionable knowledge. And, third, transfor-
mational sustainability research is concerned with real-world problems and aims at 
actionable knowledge that stakeholders are willing and able to implement. Therefore, 
there is broad agreement that such research has to be carried out in close collabora-
tion
between scientists and nonacademic stakeholders from business, government, 
and civil society (Clark and Dickson
2003
; Talwar et al.
2011
 ; Lang et al.
2012
). As 
recent reviews have addressed the third requirement (e.g., Spangenberg
2011
 ; Lang 
et al.
2012
 ), this chapter focuses on the fi rst two requirements. 
The terms “research” and “research methodology” often refer to advanced aca-
demic research. Yet, we use these terms here in a much broader sense, referring to a